From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #343 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Friday, June 1 2001 Volume 01 : Number 343 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:55:55 -0600 (MDT) From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_ (Review) Quoting "D. Michael Martindale" : > The first of the 22 immutable laws of marketing (there was such a book > by that title) is, it's better to be first than to be best. That's why > Jack Weyland is popular. He was one of the first, if not the first, > popularist LDS authors, back when the competition was approximately > nil. > He is now surviving on his laurels because he followed the first law: > he > was first with his product. > > Even better--his competition is still very close to nil. Are there any other LDS young adult fiction writers out there? Sure, there are a few who have a few books out, here and there, but I don't know of any who have anywhere near the number of books that Weyland does. He's got the known name, he's got several books in print at any given time, and he teaches lots of blunt moral lessons that attract parents who buy books for their kids. I wonder--just a thought-- if Covenant or another competing publisher were to launch a Jack Weyland clone who did the same things, only "better", would the real Jack Weyland "improve" his writing? (according to the standards of those of us who argue that he needs to improve?) - --Katie Parker - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:38:10 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: [AML] Symbolism (was: WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_) > I suspect too, that if the actual author of the book took the class in > cognito, they would end up failing it because they wouldn't understand the > symbolism in their own book, according to the teacher and other critics. > > Anna Wight But - look at it this way - Umberto Eco once said (paraphrased) - "Nothing pleases me more than to have readers point out elements in my work I did not intend to be there - yet are still there in any case." Eco has a healthy attitude - he realizes even the most careful, skilled authors (and he is on eof the most) are not always in full concious control of their works, and so things are in the literature that the authort may not have intended, but those elemenst are still there. - --Ivan Wolfe - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 00:04:17 -0700 From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: [AML] Symbolism and Emotional Honesty (was: WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_) On Tue, 29 May 2001 15:40:54 -0500 "REWIGHT" writes: > Yeah, yeah. And they hold classes about symbolism and what the > author really meant when he wrote what he did. Symbolism isn't about what the author really meant, it's about how an object or idea or landscape or person functions to deepen and enrich a work of art. For example, suppose you want to write about two teenage boys who like to do offbeat things and you want to suggest that they do offbeat things because they're not sure who they are, so you have them drive around in a hearse. Now suppose one of the boys is Navajo. Suddenly the hearse adds tremendous texture to the story. This Navajo boy really doesn't know who he is, or he wouldn't be riding around in a hearse, and before the end of the story he's going to have to deal with that. Complicate things by adding a Hopi antagonist ("Coach thinks that because we're both Indians we'll like each other. He doesn't know that Navajos hate Hopis. They used to make us slaves.") who calls the Navajo an apple ("red on the outside, white on the inside") then have the Navajo boy run past an apple orchard. You've got two symbols at work in the story that give it resonance and underline the action of the story, the Navajo boy's quest to understand his culture and how he fits in. > And sometimes I wonder, "how does the teacher know that's what the > author meant and how do they know that's what the white daisy means. > Did they ever speak to the writer?" Indeed I have, and as I told A. E. Cannon, if I wanted to explain to a high school English class how a symbol works within a story _The Shadow Brothers_, with its hearse and apples, would be a fine story to look at. > I suspect too, that if the actual author of the book took the class in > cognito, they would end up failing it because they wouldn't > understand the symbolism in their own book, according to the > teacher and other critics. Reminds me of the moment in _Back to School_ where Rodney Dangerfield hires Kurt Vonnegut to write his term paper about one of Vonnegut's novels, and the teacher flunks the paper because the paper shows no understanding of the novel. It also reminds me of the moment in _Annie Hall_ when Woody Allen and the others are standing in line for a movie and start arguing about Marshall McLuhan's ideas, and one of the guys says something like, "When was the last time you spoke to Marshall McLuhan?" and Woody walks over to a sandwich board for the movie and pulls McLuhan out from behind the sign. Many writers work very hard to add texture and depth to a story. Symbolism is not the invention of critics. For a fairly obvious example of symbolism read the first chapter of Martin Cruz Smith's _Stallion Gate_. It's the story of Joseph being delivered from prison after being left there to rot. To emphasize that he's working with that story, Smith retells the encounter between Joseph and Potiphar's wife a couple of chapters later. To further emphasize it, he named the main character Joe. > I think we need to stop looking down our noses at people who "loved > the book because it made them cry". This reason is as valid if not > more so, than any other. It's honest. Or it could be manipulation from the writer. I once found a book of mystery writers writing on their craft. Ken Follett told how in _The Key To Rebecca_ he has the Nazi spy kidnap a little girl in making his getaway. He said the character would never do that because she would slow him down, but Follett needed an emotional hook for the audience, something that would keep them reading--give them a sense that something was at stake, so he hoped the suspense would be great enough that the audience wouldn't think about the incongruity in the story. In other words, Follett is saying that he couldn't think of a way to make the stakes sufficiently high, so he resorted to manipulating the audience by being dishonest about what the character he created would actually do. I think we're about due for another discussion of emotional honesty in how a work of art achieves its effects. It has a lot of implications--particularly if you talk about pornography as a legal or literary concept. This is something I just started thinking about. The traditional concept of pornography, as laid out in the Ulysses decision is that if a work has "socially redeeming value," that is, significant literary or artistic merit, then, even if it is sexually explicit (like The Birth of Venus, or The Kiss) it's not pornographic. Another common definition is D. H. Lawrence's dictum that pornography does dirt on sex. Another is the feminist critique that pornography objectifies womens' bodies, treating them as parts for the gratification of men, rather than treating women as human beings. All these definitions imply that pornography lacks emotional honesty. Both the feminist definition and Lawrence's imply that the pornographer is not interested in the emotional nature of sex as a union of two people, but only wants to tittilate men. I think the Ulysses decision implies the same thing, because usually what we mean by significant artistic merit is that a work honestly explores a deep range of human emotion. I'm not trying to start a thread on pornography, or suggest that Jack Weyland is emotionally dishonest (when I read a Weyland novel I know that whatever faults I'll get an interesting take on a popular genre--I love what he did to the thriller genre in _On the Run_), but I would like to discuss honesty, and the ways people get emotional reactions from other people. Cornsidering how a passionate orator like Madolf Heatlump (who only had one--I miss John Lennon) can create passion in a crowd emotion in art and culture might be worth discussing. Harlow Clark ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:45:11 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Human Emotions (Was: Female Writer Wanted) At 02:33 PM 5/30/01 -0600, you wrote: > >As I stated in a previous post, I believe that the range of human >emotions is fundamentally static. Pain is pain, joy is joy, grief is >grief. I believe that empathy works because human beings all share >the same emotional palette. < I agree. I remember thinking, as a young girl, that males didn't have emotions, because I never saw them display any. That was before I knew anything about the way cultural perception shapes people's behavior. I've since learned better about the emotions, of course. At this point I do believe that men and women think differently. Some of these differences result from cultural shaping, but some are innate. A study of these differences is endlessly fascinating. These differences lead to different ways of dealing with emotions, which leads to misunderstandings on the part of both genders. After my divorce, I went through a period of looking at all men as self-centered, brutish creatures one was better off without. I've since learned how wrong that view was. (Isn't it wonderful how much we learn while we're on this planet?) The thing I still think is true, however, is that our cultural environment teaches men to hide the tender, sweet side of their nature, which is the part that seizes a woman's heart. The arrogant, strong, muscular, powerful side of their nature is thrilling to us, but I think it calls to something other than the heart. This change in viewpoint on my part has led to quite a change in the way I develop my characters. I love the way a writer's worldview colors his or her fiction! One reason LDS fiction fails to reach a certain segment of readers outside our faith is that it reveals a worldview that strongly conflicts with that of many people in our society. Part of the challenge we face is to present a universe in which God's love is real, but is yet recognizable to them as the one they live in--a universe they have come to perceive as cold, heartless, uncaring, even actively hostile and malignant. Reconciling those two views is difficult. After all, if I start reading a story in which the assumption is that there is no God and existence is meaningless, I toss it aside. It doesn't resonate with me. How to deal with this need to reconcile worldviews is something I haven't figured out. Barbara R. Hume barbara@techvoice.com (801) 765-4900 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 13:42:47 -0600 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] A Curious Project Ed Snow wrote: > What I've come across in my background reading of a > bunch of very entertaining Grail malarky about the > Templars, etc., is something very curious. The Cathars > claim that Mary Magdelene and Joseph of Arimathea left > Jerusalem to Egypt then wandered into southern France > where Mary's children through Jesus (yes, Jesus) > eventually wound up as the not-so-impressive > Merovingian dynasty in France and in other European > royal houses (best example of this kind of alternative > history: _Holy Blood Holy Grail_--"verrrrrrrry > intereshting, but shtupid"). I'll second that. I enjoyed _Holy Blood Holy Grail_ very much. It is stupid (talk about speculative fiction), no doubt, but it is intriguing because it is obvious that if nothing else, there is a group of very serious people who believe it all. And frankly, I think it'd be kind of interesting if the lineage of Jesus did exist in a withered secret society desperately clinging to their sense of superiority. Of course, if such a lineage exists and does go through Charlemagne as they claim, then pretty much all of Europe shares the bloodline by now (and most of North America of course including, well, me :)... Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:42:56 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Influencing Mormon Culture At 01:16 PM 5/30/01 -0700, you wrote: > >I think that modern American men in general are too phobic about > contact, not just Mormon men. We just someone chose the duck hug over the > A-frame and side-saddle. > >There are probably lots of places around the world where this is >irrelevant, because affection among men isn't suspect. I fear that modern >American is all too dirty-minded. < I've been in countries where the men are not afraid of their own emotions. They haven't been trained to think that it's weak and shameful to show their feelings. Italian men embrace; Egyptian men hold hands. I know that I, as a woman, at some point realized that I had been socialized to react in certain ways that were not natural for me, just as males in our culture shrink from the loving embrace of another man. But perhaps the ways they've learned to show affection instead of hugs work just as well. A man meets a friend for whom he feels deep affection, and instead of flinging his arms around his friend as a women would, he gives him a bruising punch in the arm and says something like, "How's it going, you plug-ugly disgrace to the human race?" What about it, guys--does that work for you? I was recently reading a Georgette Heyer novel written in the 1920s. In the book, a woman is out riding with a gentleman when one of his male friends shows up. The gentleman basically tells him to take a hike, and he'll let him know if he ever wants to see his face. The woman remarks, "Men are rude to their friends, and polite to people they don't like." He says, "Yes. Of course." She says, "Why do they do that?" He says, "I should think the answer to that would be obvious." Well, it's never obvious to her, but he's quite satisfied with his explanation! A writer needs to understand the viewpoint of each character, even those quite different from the writer's own. Reminds of the quip I saw recently: Girl: Why do boys think that gross things are funny? Boy: Why do girls think that funny things are gross? Barbara R. Hume barbara@techvoice.com (801) 765-4900 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:49:06 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: RE: [AML] Female Writer Wanted <<>> =20 Thanks for pointing this out, Steve. I'm in the same boat. When I = challenged the female BFOQ, I didn't realize this was for a spinoff in a = female POV. I thought it was a direct novelization of _God's Army._ = Frankly, it makes complete sense to prefer a female novelist for a female = POV story. Chris Bigelow - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:45:05 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: RE: [AML] _Irreantum_ Proofers Needed in Utah County <<>> Sigh. That's the idea.=20 NEXT issue we're going to catch up, I just know it. (By the way, I just = found out our summer issue will run a sneak preview of the first two = chapters of Anne Perry's _Tathea_ sequel, accompanying her interview.) Chris Bigelow - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 10:12:12 -0500 From: Kent Larsen (by way of Ronn Blankenship ) Subject: [AML] MN Merger of LDS Publishers Dissolves: Kent Larsen 31May01 B4 From Mormon-News: See footer for instructions on joining and leaving this list. Do you have an opinion on this news item? Send your comment to letters.to.editor@MormonsToday.com Merger of LDS Publishers Dissolves BOUNTIFUL, UTAH -- The purchase of longtime LDS publisher Horizon Publishing and Distribution by newcomer Cornerstone Books announced last Fall has fallen apart, the victim of financial woes. Last August Cornerstone owner Richard Hopkins agreed to purchase Horizon, where he once worked, from its only owner, Duane Crowther, who was going on an LDS mission. But Hopkins says that when financing fell through unexpectedly, the combined firm was left without enough capital. The unexpected turn of events left the LDS market smaller, without the 12 to 24 new titles that Hopkins planned to publish each year. The split occurred in April, after Hopkins struggled for months to find alternative financing. He says he had a verbal commitment for the financing from Zions Bank, but that after the purchase agreement had been signed, Zions cancelled the commitment. He then searched and found additional financing early this year, but by that time the combined company had fallen behind in many areas, including its scheduled payments to Crowther. The loss of income forced Crowther, who was depending on the income for his mission and retirement, to return and address the problem. Hopkins says that he tried to renegotiate the deal, but that they were not able to reach a satisfactory agreement. Finally, in April, Crowther foreclosed and took over Horizon again. He has since brought in Clay Gorton to work as the company's General Manager and longtime LDS publishing veteran John Hawkes to serve as Production Manager. With the company returning to stability, Crowther has returned to his missionary service. The experience has left both companies weaker. Gorton says that Horizon is getting back into operation, printing additional copies of backlist titles that had run low and getting flyers out to customers advertising its products. He says that Horizon is just now addressing new manuscripts, and certainly won't have any new titles out before late in the Fall. Cornerstone has also been hurt because of the breakup, but has managed to find enough resources to get back in the market more quickly than Horizon. The company has a few new titles scheduled for this summer and expects to work back into full production in the Fall. Sources: Mormon News interviews with Richard Hopkins, Clay Gorton Cornerstone Finds Firm Foundation Without Horizon Publishers The LDS Bookseller Spring01 B4 By Richard Hopkins >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 12:58:37 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Moderator Message Folks, This started out as a set of comments on the Female Writer Wanted thread. Much of what I have to say here is specific to that thread; however, I also include a number of general points that I think are worth considering in general. The Female Writer Wanted has been (and continues to be) a good thread, in which an initial discussion of Richard Dutcher's call for a writer has blossomed into all kinds of interesting directions, from legal issues relating to writing employment to gender differences in experience, the contrast between experience and imagination as tools for the writer, and the reality and limits of empathy. It's also started leading in the direction of increasing warmth as List members express their views. To some degree, I think this is inevitable, since it touches on issues that relate very centrally to who we think we are as writers and human beings. On the one hand, the insistence on the priority of experience can seem to lead down a path of prior restraint for what writers "ought to" write about--that if you haven't had a particular experience, or if you aren't part of a particular group, you really shouldn't write about that experience, because you can't do it knowledgeably. On the other hand, the insistence that experience is not crucial for the writer, that all that is needed is imagination and research, can seem to diminish the importance and reality of the lives people lead--suggesting that "reading about it" has the same value as actually living through it, and thereby devaluing the personal prices people pay for their experiences. Let me hasten to add that I don't think either side of this discussion is actually promoting either of the views I list above. But I think many of us are reacting as if those are the views to which we're responding. And I think it's important for all of us to recognize that the discussion is dealing with questions where all of us are likely to be sensitive, because it relates to areas of personal identity. When we talk about what what writers can and can't do, it's hard (if not impossible) to separate that from the question of my own ability and identity as a writer. When we talk about the importance of experience, it's hard (if not impossible) to separate that from the question of the value of my own personal experience. I want the conversation to continue, because I think we're talking about some important questions that relate in very clear ways to the central topics of the List. But I'd like to invite us all to consider the following suggestions (many of which relate as well to certain other current threads): * Read the posts of others both carefully and with charity. If it is possible to interpret a comment as general rather than personal, please do so. * Recognize that the point to which we're responding may be different from the point someone else wished to make. For example: "I recognize that this is probably not what you were saying, but it reminds me of the statement I've often heard that..." * Avoid extraneous, offhand, and dismissive comments about particular groups, philosophies, or broad attitudes. For example: say "This is an attitude I've seen among certain brands of feminism," rather than "This is a feminist attitude." * Be careful to respect the intelligence and experience of others. Avoid commenting on motivations of other List members, except in the most careful and respectful of ways. * Be careful in the ways you express disagreement or lack of enjoyment of works which others enjoy. It's okay to say everything you think is wrong about an artistic work--but it's important to do so in a way that doesn't suggest that those who do appreciate it lack good taste, spirituality, etc. * Be careful not to react personally to criticism of works you enjoy. AML-List is a place where people are allowed, even encouraged, to say negative things about works of art, as well as positive things--if it's for what they see as a constructive purpose, such as improving the quality of art in general. At the same time, it's certainly okay--even encouraged--to disagree with someone's judgment of a work of art, as long (again) as this is done respectfully. * Avoid sarcasm. * Avoid point-by-point refutations of what others have said. It's better, and more constructive, to present your own contrasting position; rarely if ever acceptable to attempt a formal debate-style critique of someone else's position. * Avoid drawing conclusions about "the position of the List." As we read positions that disagree with ours, I've found that it's easy to start feeling that we are alone in our own position. At times, I've had writers on both sides of an issue who felt they were representing a minority opinion, against an overwhelming tide of opposition. This usually isn't the case. I've learned that there's a lot of diversity on the List, though it may not be reflected in those who choose to respond to a particular topic of conversation. * Don't read too much into a lack of response. Many is the post I have labored over, crafted carefully, then sent out--to vanish, so far as I could tell, into a mountain of silence. Discouraging, but I've learned that it happens to everyone. * Remember that this is a public forum. Write everything you write as if anyone might read it--because they may. * Don't simply keep repeating your own position. I think it's easy sometimes for our goal to drift from that of presenting our own position to silencing those with a different view, either through the intensity (or logic) of our arguments or simply by outlasting them. That's not an appropriate goal for this List. As I look back at list of suggestions, it strikes me as long and rather negative--a list of don'ts rather than dos. So I'd like to end on a more positive note, with a list of dos. Do-- * State your position clearly, fluently, passionately, either briefly or at length, respecting at the same time the positions of others that differ from yours. * Share your experiences and insights that contribute to the way you think about things. * Present your viewpoint even--indeed, especially--when it is different from what others are saying. There may be a lot of people who agree with you and are simply waiting for someone to speak up. How can you have a good conversation if many of the participants are silent? * Feel free to change the current of the conversation. If something someone says raises an interesting but different question in your mind, feel free to share it. You might just open up a new conversational vein. With that in mind, let's continue with the conversation... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 17:18:07 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Influencing Mormon Culture REWIGHT wrote: > > > > > People who know me know they are going to get a hug. Regardless of > > gender. Perhaps it is that I am 60+ and have decided that culture is > > not as important as people. We all need hugs. I can't tell you how many > > young men have in a moment of a hug after a serious conversation. > > something to the effect: " I wish my Dad would hug me like you do". My > > Dad hugged me. I am grateful for that. I hugged my children, > > particularly after discipline. My wish would be that whoever decided > > that hugs were "unmanly" could be hugged by us all, that they might know > > the power of a healthy hug! > > > How wonderful! I find though in the Mormon culture, that it's taboo for > married people to touch members of the opposite sex in any way other than a > hand shake. Let's define this even further. The American Mormon culture. The French Saints have no problem at all with hugging and kissing the cheeks of members of the opposite sex. > As a young adult I had many male friends. But once I moved away and got > married, I no longer had male friends. As someone without a father or > brothers, that left me bereft of any male contact other than my husband. > Now I have three sons, but the taboo is still there. "Don't touch anyone of > the opposite sex unless they're family." Maybe it's not a universal Mormon taboo. My family is a very hugging family. My wife hugs her sons-in-law, I hug my son's girlfriends, my kinds all hug their friends. - -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - -------------------------- Shameless Plug - ------------------------------- Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin Payne *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer festival: http://www.playwrightscircle.com - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 17:34:50 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_ (Review) REWIGHT wrote: > > > Emotion on the other hand is honest. No qualifications at all? You've never met "phony" people, who cry at the drop of a hat to impress you? Emotion is as honest as the person who exhibits it. If, for instance, they've been abused growing up ("Don't you cry! Men don't cry!"), they're likely to NOT cry when they should. And this goes for the other emotions. > However, I would be offended by someone who would state what the my work > means, would suggest that they know better than I do what I meant, or put > symbolisms and meanings in it that were never expressed. I submit that this can and does happen. It's happened to me, I know that. I've had people come to me and go, "Wow, I totally get what you were trying to say in that section." They show me what they're talking about and, darned if they aren't right, there that symbolism is. I don't think a good writer can write anything without some symbol showing up somewhere. What are words, if not symbols that stand for thoughts. > I realize that there will always be critics. And sometimes before I submit > my work, I will ask for help with a critique from another writer. This is > far different from a critic shooting someone down, and far more helpful. > More likely than not, if I do get a book published and I am ever criticized > it will be a negative one. But if I get more positive response from people > who say "you moved me", then I will find that far more valuable than the > negativity of a frustrated critic. What your audience thinks is always more important than what faceless critics think. - -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - -------------------------- Shameless Plug - ------------------------------- Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin Payne *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer festival: http://www.playwrightscircle.com - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:28:05 -0600 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] re: Female Writer Wanted D. Michael Martindale compares giving birth to having the "runs." Hmmmmm. One of the biggest problems with this very problematic analogy is the failure to recognize that the *pain* of childbirth is but one aspect of the whole glorious, agonizing, sacred, torturous, and utterly transcendent experience. But I guess you'd have to have experienced it to understand. :-) Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 18:00:13 -0700 From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] Influencing Mormon Culture Thanks to everyone for the great responses. Thom, I believe you are right about it being Dan Jones who used the prophet's arm for a pillow. I passed through Carthage in December of 1999 and took the tour. The elderly missionary there told that part of the story with great feeling and affection for the idea that Joseph Smith was so hands-on. Was it also Dan Jones who rode to Nauvoo from Carthage having been stabbed in the foot with a bayonet and arriving with his boot full of blood? I think you're right about the "I'm not gay" code. The force of the slap also indicates how worried the man is that someone might think he is gay. My favorite way to be hugged is for no slaps, a firm grip, and then a nice back scratch. I can never find enough sharp corners in buildings to scratch my own back, and I stopped being able to reach it years ago. What amuses me most about the "I'm not gay" code is that I've never met a man who was afraid someone would think he is gay who had anything to worry about from any gay men. The degree of fear seems to be directly proportional to the unlikelihood one of "us" would find him attractive. I'm always having to tell men, "Don't flatter yourself." Michael, I agree with what you said about an unlikely event being crammed into a story. In my case, the event was the story, and it is not nearly so far-fetched as a dog grabbing a rope and being dragged into the stratosphere. I appreciate your insights. Barbara, thanks for the points and scene from the Heyer novel. I know I read a novel by her at some point in my life, but cannot remember it. I know that men do show affection for each other in different ways, and I don't mind being slugged or called names, but I find that I've got a much thicker skin than the emerging generation of men. More and more I see young men who think too much. They analyze what their friends mean by innocent horseplay. As much as I regret the loss of a more ancient male affection style, I also regret the loss of men's men who can still take a joke. I fear I will have to lose my sense of humor someday soon, just so I don't upset anyone. Rex Goode - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:26:18 EDT From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Influencing Mormon Culture In a message dated 5/31/01 5:54:37 PM Central Daylight Time, REWIGHT@TELUSPLANET.NET writes: << My wish would be that whoever decided > that hugs were "unmanly" could be hugged by us all, that they might know > the power of a healthy hug! > >> Leo Buscallia (sp) got famous and wealthy about 30 years ago by telling everyone to hug and touch. He wrote books along the same line. Somehow people thought that was profound. I thought it was amusing that a message so simple and obvious would be such a hit with audiences. Violet Kimball [MOD: Leo Buscaglia] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:30:50 EDT From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Female Writer Wanted In a message dated 5/31/01 5:55:00 PM Central Daylight Time, ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net writes: << >As a closet feminist (are men allowed to be feminists; I was once voted an >"honorary woman" by some feminine feminists at a company where it seemed >that only women were competent--does that count?) >> Carol Lynn Pearson has a bumper sticker that (I think) reads: "Feminism is the idea that women are human beings." I would like to have one to put on my car just as soon as I get the correct wording. My last one; "Write Women Back Into History" was ripped off by someone. Violet Kimball - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:33:21 -0600 From: Steve Subject: [AML] Fiction as Plausible (was: Influencing Mormon Culture) on 5/31/01 2:16 AM, D. Michael Martindale at dmichael@wwno.com wrote: > I once read an anecdote in a how-to-write book. An author wrote a story > about a dog who grabbed onto a cable with his teeth as it dangled from a > plane passing by for take-off, and was whisked up by the plane. When he > submitted the story to an editor, the editor dismissed that as > ridiculous. The author produced a newspaper article about that very > event actually happening. The editor was not impressed. He didn't care > if it had happened. He only cared that it sounded plausible. Was it Samuel Clemens who said, "Unlike real life, fiction has to make sense." Steve - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:33:21 -0600 From: Steve Subject: Re: [AML] Symbolism and Emotional Honesty on 5/31/01 1:04 AM, harlowclark@juno.com at harlowclark@juno.com wrote: > but I would like to > discuss honesty, and the ways people get emotional reactions from other > people. Cornsidering how a passionate orator like Madolf Heatlump (who > only had one--I miss John Lennon) can create passion in a crowd emotion > in art and culture might be worth discussing. As a kid in Logan, UT, I was standing in the LDS meetinghouse foyer when some adults were asking elderly Sister Durtschi how Hitler had gotten the Germans behind him. She thought for a minute and said, "If you had been there with us, if you had once heard him speak, you would have followed him to the ends of the earth." Then she shook her head and muttered something in German which I have always wished I'd been able to understand. Steve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Steven Kapp Perry, songwriter and playwright http://www.stevenkappperry.com http://www.playwrightscircle.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 22:25:32 -0500 From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Hale Theater It must be nice to live in an area where theatre is so abundant and so clean. I have had enormous troubles where I live getting involved in the theater and when I do, more often than not the material is something that I could not in good conscience do. So count your blessings. Anna Wight - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Tarbet" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:56 PM Subject: RE: [AML] Hale Theater > Eric Snider: > > > It has struck me often that while Utahns claim to be great lovers of > > theater, this really only goes so far. We talk about how many > > theaters we have -- far more than we should, given our population > > size -- and how we love to be patrons of the arts. But when you get > > right down to it, what do people actually go see? Shows they've seen > > before ("Joseph," "Forever Plaid," "Fiddler on the Roof"), shows > > their friends and relatives are in, and shows at one particular > > theater they always go to no matter what. Put on an unfamiliar show > > or a drama or one that challenges people's sensibilities, and > > suddenly people aren't quite the theater-lovers they used to be. > > There's a sad but simple calculus that goes on among those of us who plan > our community-based theatres' seasons: because we all rely heavily on > ticket sales we have to have so many "big" shows in the line-up in order to > keep the lights turned on so that we can do the stuff that turns us on. > We've got to do "Fiddler" and "Sound of Music" and "Joseph" so that we can > afford to do "Diary Of Anne Frank" or "Death Of A Salesman" -- not to > mention "Three Women" or "Stones". So on balance it's a good thing that > there's an abundant population of enthusiastic amateurs for whom the big > musicals *are* theatre, who will turn out in droves for those auditions, > fill those choruses, snap up those t-shirts, and pre-sell those seats to > those friends and relatives. > > Please don't get me wrong: I love musicals with a passion, besides being > glad we have them as bread and butter to finance the more serious works for > which we diligently strive to develop our audiences' appreciation. At the > Villa and Little Brown, for instance, we're mulling over our 2002 line-up > and have the necessary workhorses in the lineup to pay the bills. But we're > also experimenting with shorter runs at the Little Brown to give us more > slots for original local works, outside productions, and a leavening of true > classics. We know from experience that this is very risky -- we just don't > sell as many seats for the dramas that challenge as we do for the musicals > and comedies that amuse, and the overhead must still be paid -- but we > believe that there's an audience out there that will support the kinds of > serious endeavors we're planning, especially as we continue to raise our > production values. > > This list is heavy on authors, as is only right given its emphasis, so I'm > often challenged by the stream of book titles that goes by that I really > ought to read [I haven't even read _Wine Dark Sea of Grass_. *YET* -- I can > say that out loud because Marilyn is in Boston... ;-)] But you folks > challenge me and broaden my literary horizons. I hope the playwrights, > directors, and performers here provide you all the same kind of challenge, > to carve time out of your otherwise art-laden lives to support quality film > and live theatre. > > [Scott Tarbet] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #343 ******************************